Rick Perry Versus the True Believers

A favorite charge is that he’s ignorant and anti-science. Some of Perry’s recent remarks about anthropogenic global warming — for example, that there is a “substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data,” and that “weekly or daily” scientists are “coming forward and questioning” AGW — have his critics nearly chortling with glee as they derisively dismiss such an obvious dummy.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Timesjokingly calls Perry crazy for alleging that “climate change is some fraud perpetrated by scientists trying to gin up money for research.” But Friedman is so busy laughing at Perry that he doesn’t even bother to distinguish between global warming and anthropogenic global warming, although it’s the latter about which Perry made his skeptical remarks. What’s more, in citing record-setting Texas drought and wildfires in order to mock Perry for doubting the obvious reality of global warming, Friedman makes one of the most basic errors of all in the global warming debate: confusing weather with climate.

It is certainly possible to make a valid case against Perry’s claim that a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data, or that scientists are coming forward on a daily basis to deny AGW. But although Perry may be overstating the numbers, the phenomenon exists, and it is not trivial. All it takes to see it is to follow the Climategate revelations and to read critiques such as this one by environmental scientist Patrick J. Michaels or this by mathematician Steve McIntyre, which find fault with the various reports claiming to exonerate the climate researchers involved. And there is no doubt that prominent scientists such as Nobel prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever have come forward to join others such as nuclear physicist Harold Lewis in resigning from the American Physical Society because of its extreme pro-AGW stance.

Giaever objected to the APS’s use of the word “incontrovertible” to describe the science of AGW, and Lewis had particularly scathing words for the APS in his letter of resignation:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Compared to Lewis’ accusations, Rick Perry’s are a model of restraint.

153 Comments, 55 Threads

1.
jd

And, Oh – By the Way…

New observable evidence is emerging from CERN as well.

What is CERN?
CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In that chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

This is what, in the Business, is called The BIG Con. Scare, Promise the Sky is falling, then promise HUGE Profits for those that get in on the scam in the cellar, Then perpetuate the Lie. Politicians jump on the bandwagon because it is a New Source of Revenue…Green Tax’s! Carbon Tax’s, Green Energy, Carbon Credits.

Remember Scientists can be Greedy too! They need funds so they don’t have to “work for a living” just put out papers supporting the Con. In flows the Government Cash. Want to know where a lot of your tax dollars are going? Look at the money going to “Junk Science” projects!

‘fraid so Mike,
Owebama didn’t come down from the mount with stone tablets and Scientists are smartass’s who fake data for whomever will pay the most. We are losing our Honor and Trust for more and more people every day. Won’t be long till Lawyers rise to the surface of the popularity pool and everyone else has sunk into the swamp…OH MY GOD!

Thank you, jd. I had NO idea that the big yellow ball in the sky had ANYTHING to do with the temperature of the Earth. What a revelation! Too bad more people don’t look up once in a while. On another subject, less than 14 months until we get this crew out of Washington. Perry/Rubio 2012.

That is the story we’ve been told. But there is a dark secret that we haven’t been told…
The truth is that Tim Berners-Lee had digitized a photo of his intern without her top on. He wanted to get this “data” out to all his friends but the file was far to large for the email server to handle. Thus the world wide web was born.

Meanwhile Obama is agitating and threatening and introducing the Buffet Rule etc.
and what’s going on behind the scenes? Cap and Trade victories and more EPA malfeasance. Obama is the quintessential “rodeo clown” that serves only to distract the bulls in the arena. This man’s policies HAVE to be stopped; he’s gone AWOL with all this commie stuff and it looks a lot like he’s mocking us as he’s doing it. Or is it just me?

An appeal to authority is not particularly effective way to convince a bunch of anti-authoritarians to believe in something. Furthermore, most Nobel prize winners don’t know very much about AGW. It is almost insulting to be told that, “Hey, this Nobel prize winner in literature is obviously smarter than you and believes in AGW so you should too.” That is not exactly what you said, but it is basically what you communicated. The anti-AGW scene has taken the initiative to delve into the statistics, computer code and science to a much greater degree than the pro-AGW crowd. They are questioning the results and climate-gate has led them to question the integrity of the original researchers themselves (another reason why appeal to authority is bad in this case).
There is nothing more American than a smart guy who perhaps studied physics and stats and college (currently working in private industry somewhere) who, delving into scientific research himself, finds reason to question a prevailing theory, especially one backed by billions of dollars of incentive. It is the classic American, anti-elite, egalitarian, in your face to the credentialed nobility story.

“Thomas Friedman of the New York Times jokingly calls Perry crazy for alleging that “climate change is some fraud perpetrated by scientists trying to gin up money for research.”

Sorry Tom, but Man-Made global warming WAS a fraud perpetrated by scientists to gin up money for research, and we have the e-mails to prove it. “Scientists” in England tried to manipulate man-made global warming data to fit their own conclusions, and these conclusions were done to get more money for research, which is why many people now don’t believe in Man-made global warming. Most of it is a fraud and, since India and China don’t believe in it, why should we?

And how many of those nobelists are climate scientists? Zero. One of them has a Nobel in Literature – certainly a strong scientific credential. Some are physicists, and as we know, physicists are experts in everything.

Obama was given the Nobel Peace prize for the peace he was to bring. That worked out well.
The granting of Nobels has become a political game intended to manipulate world politics. Having twenty Nobel winners pontificate outside their fields to try and prop up the global warming scam just proves this point.

Physicist, I think you’re exaggerating the military’s pursuit of energy conservation. It’s nothing to do with AGW, nor does the military even mention AGW. The military is trying to save on energy simply because it’s part of their job to make the best use of their limited resources. To say that the military is behind AGW because they manage & conserve energy resources is simply deceitful and manipulative.

Physicist, a military oceanographer has nothing to do with military fuel logistics and planning. You’re simply trolling for the sake of stirring up a reaction. Your credibility goes to zero when you do this. Come to think of it, your credibility has gone negative.

As a real physicist who actually has done atmospheric modeling, allow me to say that “A physicist’s” claims are bunk. First of all, there is no credible evidense that AGW is having any significant effect on climate, and the evidence against AGW, in the form it is commonly preached, is mounting. The many fraudulent claims made by AGW alarmists aside, the current consensus among climate researchers is that alarmist AGW predictions are unfounded and that science involved is neither settled nor incontrovertable.

Specifically, AGW is NOT widely supported among physicists who actually do atmospheric studies. In point of fact, relatively few actually support the theory, it is widely acknowledged that the models used are at best unproved and appear to have serious problems (the solar & CO2 forcing functions as implemented appear to be almost pure nonsense) and I know of none who support the idea that AGW (to the extent it does or did exist) will have catastrophic consequences.

If Al Gore, Timothy Wirth, Enron, Maurice Strong and his UN buddies had never existed, or hadn’t thought the notion of carbon dioxide induced global warming, would we even be having this discussion today? Would unbiased, logical, fact and truth embracing physicists/climatogists ever have thought up a potential CO2 based connection to the very modest warming of the last century? Man’s activities only generate 3-5 percent of total global CO2 liberation. All things being equal my first thought would be that solar activity is what drives temperature changes on the planet. And guess what, it does!! How simple, the answer stares us in the face every sunny day.

Wild claims made by those deemed credible by a significant portion of the population after being bombarded with claims by those that form opinion such as the MSM and the liberal education industry are often hard to refute. Its like the question “when did you stop beating your wife”. There’s little proof, even theoretical that CO2 causes runaway global warming, but that lack of proof also hurts those that deny because by the same token there’s little proof that it doesn’t.

If, as I believe and common sense tells us that the sun causes our temperature change, we are very very lucky because the sun is in a very lazy stage and if the earth cools significantly over the next decade as it appears it is doing, then we will convincingly win this one and the warmists will go the way of the flatearthers.

That’s a key characteristic of Perry – and one that I admire; few politicians have it: plain speaking. Perry doesn’t ‘talk the talk’, i.e., speak in political rhetoric. He simply says what he thinks – and what he thinks is attached to his knowledge and experience of reality.

Political rhetoric is a unique mode of speech/thought. It’s unconnected to reality. Totally unconnected. Words exist ‘in themselves’ and have one agenda: to persuade you that the speaker is in control: of the world. And of you. This certainty of control is reassuring and attractive. The dominant 5-star winner of political rhetoric is Obama.

The problem is, if you parse the rhetoric, you find that it’s empty. It’s just words. Words and words…just like an Obama speech. It goes on forever and then, if you haven’t been entrapped in its honeyed emotions, you realize that there’s no ‘meat’ there. There’s no hard facts, no connection to ‘how to do this’ or ‘what to do’. Just…’we’ll be feeling really great when we’ve done it’. Done what?…

Perry doesn’t operate in words. He’s focused on reality.

Now, with regard to AGW – that’s a massive UN brokered fiscal scam to get money from the industrial to non-industrial nations. Even then, given the corruption of the scam, the money doesn’t go to the people and infrastructure of the so-called developing nations. It’s siphoned off into the pockets of the ocrrupt leaders of these nations.

As pointed out, AGW isn’t science; it’s not based on science; it’s based on a non-scientific agenda of theft. Money from X to Y.

Theoretically, AGW is grounded in false axioms that rest within and only within emotion. Not a single scientific fact exists in its axioms.

The first AGW axiom is that man is culpable (basic human emotion) but that successful men are more culpable. So, the industrial nations are guilty..of being industrial. They must pay for this.

Second, industrialism is somehow, innate, and all peoples must industrialize and if they haven’t, it’s because Others have prevented them from doing so. Those who are assumed the culprits of such prevention: the already industrialized, the West.

Third, is the assumption, an astonishing one in its naivete and unscientific premise, that man controls complex systems. The climate is a complex system and to assume that man can control complex systems is an astonishing claim. Man can create and control mechanical, single cause or linear causal systems, but so far, man can’t control complex systems. AGW is based on a mechanical causality: man-causes the climate change.

Fourth, are the common confusions about definitions in the AGW argument. Climate is confused with weather; CO2 emissions are confused with pollution; local changes are defined as global.

And finally, the refusal to accept dissent and questions is a basic factor in concluding that AGW is not a science but a political ideology.

Perry is right, and I for one appreciate his being grounded in reality rather than ideological rhetoric.

Tomper, ‘a physicist’ is most certainly not a physicist, nor with any training in the real sciences. Or mathematics.

He’s deeply entrenched in the AGW cult, and posts, endlessly, on this theme. His posts are all the same: with attachments that are not scientific evidence but ‘ad populam’, ‘ad numeram’, ‘simpliciter’, ‘false analogy’..and so on. He’s a perfect example for teachers to use in critical thinking classes.

Oh – and he then switches into a ‘faux-friendly’ tone, where he inserts folksy terms, drops his ‘g’, and inserts smiley faces…to reduce your dissent.

Among the hundreds of millions of folks who will pay no attention to this PJM/Tatler piece are the world’s business executives, sea-captains, military leaders, scientists, the Vatican, wildlife biologists, political leaders, the world’s farmers hunters and fisherman, and 98% of all scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.

So, the Defense Department “goes green,” and you present that as “evidence” that even the most hawkish conservatives are AGW believers. Do you REALLY think the DoD did this voluntarily? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It does receive a lot of attention from you – 4 posts out of 18 totals – that’s, (pardon my lack of math skills, I am a “denialist”, after all, multiply …., carry the 2…, 30 min later) 22.222%! Astonishing amount of attention from no less than a professor from a university!
If I use statistical extrapolation methods from some of the more known alarmists, like Dr. Hansen, that means that according to scenario C, no less than 300% of American population will get to read this. Yeah!

Interesting… I like you style of arguing. You did not address my question, which was, essentially, “if this article is as inconsequential as you claim, how come you paying so much attention to it?”.

Instead you are trying to turn argument of climate skeptics (notice the difference between who we actually are and deliberate insult you are using), that consensus is irrelevant on its head. Yes, there are consensus of “scientists” that global warming as caused by man. It is us, skeptics, who is saying that consensus doesn’t matter – the only thing that matter is the truth. It is is you, alarmists, who must prove that you are correct, despite your attempts to rewrite the definition of null hypothesis, not us.

Despite your claims, science of AGW less certain now then before, as more and more skeptical papers manage to break through your pal-review censorships, as more physical evidence (not models) show that your prediction and models are wrong.

And your fervent attempt to flood this “inconsequential” article with insults only show higher and higher level of desperation.

BTW, your current level of “zero attention” is 8 out of 31 – a full 25.8% Are you being paid for this or what?

As far as as other argument – it seems that the more real-world measurement is being performed, the less likely AGW is. The warming has not been happening for last 10 years. The arctic ice is not in “death spiral”. The heat is still “missing”, and it is still “a travesty”. The global ice level are increasing. THe local arctic ice levels are not any worse then in 1920-30s. THe MWP is still warmer than now and “hockey stick” and all of its derivatives are still a fraud. And “Mike’s Nature Trick” still doesn’t explain why we can trust any of treemometer temperature reconstructions of the past.

But we have CERN experiments and we have newly published paper on cloud feedbacks and we have Climate Gate and we have failed predictions for last 11 years and we have no increase in cyclonic energy and we have nothing remarkable about climate…

And we have 11 out of 43 messages on this board that belong to you – a 25.6%. Lack of interest, indeed.

Oh, John, does the bullethole in your foot hurt? You just cited Einstein to show exactly the flaw in your ongoing effort to use the “consensus” to support the CO2-forced anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

In my meanderings taking core samples around various locations, generally digging with a boring device to an average depth of 50-90 ft, we find the earth core temp to be a fairly constant 58 degrees over a fairly widespread sample area of about a 1,000 square mile area of the mid-west. This sample area can be a string of bore holes from Texas up through Kansas. Provided we encounter sufficient moisture at depth, the rock core is very stable at 58 degrees -+ .02%. Dryer holes tend to mimic surface conditions.

Thus I conclude that the earth is doing just fine, everything going on up on the surface is more properly classified as weather, and that’s going to continue to present a host of variables that will confuse climate data. Weather is a product of the sun activity, not a coal fired generation plant in W. VA.

The AGW advocates need to go back and take another hard look at the long term data, 100 years or more, and then come back and tell us there has been a sustained rise of 3 or more degrees C in ocean temps over the past century. 1 and 1/2 to 2 degrees is within norms over 10 years section periods and will slightly alter the shape of sea ice briefly but only to see it heal up again the in the following winters.

Granted, I’m biased, I work for energy concerns. However I see no reason to drastically alter our energy attitude and throw out the baby with the bath water. We’ve lived with coal and oil all these years,,, fought and fueled 3 major wars in the 20th Century, and we are at the peak of industrial productivity based on these conventional fuels going in to the 21th Century. It’s a little late in the game to switch horses at this point.

Established science becomes engineering. Thermodynamics is in the design of your car. Quantum mechanics is a factor in computer chips.

If going from 260ppm CO2 to 400ppm will warm a system by 3oC. Then a bucket of dry ice could warm a stadium. When heating and cooling engineers start using a fraction of a percent of CO2 then it is established science.

When Science is settled, it becomes Engineering. Everybody believes it, and use it to the betterment of Mankind. Noone has to force anyone to believe in Gravity. It is to our advantage that we believe in that, and act like it is there.

By contrast, when Science is false, there is no Engineering done on it. Rather, it moves into politics so lies and coercion can be used to force people to act as if it were true.

There was no Engineering based on the incorrect theory Eugenics. No engineering based on Lamarck’s theory of inherited experience. No engineered vaccines based on creationism.

If global warming was real, Al Gore would have bought his new house on the shores of the Great Slave Lake in Canada. Which he didn’t.

The Navier Stokes equations are still non-linear and chaotic. Long range predictions can still not be made accurately. Just as life on earth is responsible for the Oxygen we breath, our atmosphere will continue to interact with the atmosphere, and live will adapt and interact through evolution to changes in the atmosphere, in ways we cannot predict. We can predict that prediction is impossible.

What has always fascinated me in the AGW discussion is that journalists such as Friedman and Fallows have such strong and pompous opinions of others as “morons” when they themselves are, relatively speaking, scientific illiterates. Projection anyone?

AGW isn’t science, it’s dogma. Political dogma meant to denigrate and weaken the industrial economies of the western world (not those of the ‘third world’!) AGW ignores objective evidence, data, facts..and instead, embeds itself in subjective opinions of ‘all those folks who accept it’. Rather similar to beliefs in aliens, monsters and etc.

If you analyze AGW, as a ‘thought-process’, you see that it’s based on several basic axioms, which I outlined above. The most basic one is ‘Man is a Sinner’. This is an ancient belief held by many peoples over the centuries.
Then, you must address this opinion by punishment, in this case, financial, to ‘pay for one’s sins’.

That’s all there is to the thinking. The various outlines provided as footnotes as proof have all been debunked as unscientific. AGW has no scientific base.

These outlines reveal the utter ignorance of the AGW to long term cyclical changes in climate; to the fact that climate is complex rather than mechanical and thus, embedded within numerous causal factors (the sun, the oceans, hydrothermal vents, volcanic activity, the flexible and adaptive nature of both plant and animal interactions with climate etc etc).

Is climate change real? Of course it is; there’s objective evidence of that. But is it caused by man? Is AGW valid? No, of course not; there’s no scientific evidence of it.
Then, heh, we’d have to move on to the basic infrastructure of the AGW belief system: Sin. Is Sin real? Can one, by paying a penalty, expunge one’s sin?

The geological record demonstrates without a doubt that natural forces can produce enormous changes in climate.

These forces can makes the climate shift back and forth for millions of years. Witness the present Ice Age that goes back about three million years. That’s right, we are in an ice age right now. This is just one of the interglacial warm periods.

In order for AGW to stand up straight and not fall flat on its ass, the Warmists must argue that the data shows we are presently experiencing not only powerful changes that must come from human activity but that these changes must be happening at a rate that no natural forces can produce.

Back in the Seventies and Eighties there was a trend in environmental science to talk about cycles operating in and between geological and biological systems. David Suzuki, a present day AGW profiteer, the Goddess irony whispers to me, focused on this. We were taught that Man poses a threat to Nature because Man can interfere with these vital cycles of matter and energy.

What a bunch of Neo-Ludites here. I have to stand with ‘A physicist’ in opposition to such.

The proof that man is the cause of globull warming is indisputable and s’ported with incontrovertible fact. Consider this undeniable proof.

At the crack of dawn billions of people worldwide get up and head to work, many in automobiles, soon temperatures begin to soar, at noon many go to lunch.. driving and cooking, the temperatures get even higher. Late afternoon they all drive home.. causing the temperature to be at it’s highest for the day. The park there cars , eat and go to sleep by nighttime almost all human activity is at it’s lowest point. Likewise the earth cools down until the next morning when this cycle starts again and temperatures soar.

Buch of Neo-Ludites just cannot get that thru your head.. HUMANS cause warming.

Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions?

Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources?

All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.

Protecting the natural environment in order to build a world of peace is thus a duty incumbent upon each and all.

It is an urgent challenge, one to be faced with renewed and concerted commitment; it is also a providential opportunity to hand down to coming generations the prospect of a better future for all.

I invite all men and women to take to heart the urgent appeal: If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.

And the Popes views on this means what to me? Fairly certain at one point The Church dogma stated the world was flat. Is it your position that the Holy See is the definitive authority on Scientific fact?

fantom – as usual, ‘A physicist’ (who is not a physicist or a scientist) is using a fallacious argument, in this case, ‘ad verecundiam’, an appeal to an authority, but, in this case, outside of the topic (AGW). In addition, his argument is a red herring, for what Benedict is talking about, is not AGW and does not provide any evidence for AGW.

Benedict is talking about pollution (not warming), about desalinization, about deforestation, etc..which all have nothing to do with AGW or indeed, with climate change, but deal with good environmental practices of man that do not pollute, denude forest cover or reduce fresh water sources. Yet, ‘A physicist’ with his usual inability to analyze his links, brings it up as some kind of ‘evidence of AGW’!

Notice how ‘A Physicist’ merges and confuses terms (pollution with climate change), and uses concern about the former to show evidence that the speaker believes in the latter…and not only the latter, but, AGW.

This type of non-argument, filled with fallacies, is the basis of the AGW argument. As such, belief in AGW is not open to reason and evidence; it’s pure dogma, a faith-based opinion.

We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses.

We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.

By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.

We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us.

The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.

Gosh, that seems pretty definite, eh?

But heck … if yah feel like quibblin’ some more … well just go right ahead. … :) … ;) …

Precisely why I have been ending my posts with a “prayer” To the “Holy See” of the Church of Globull warmist.. AKA Al Gore.

The warmist really are no different than the Church of Galileo’s era. And the way the warmist treat apostates is only exceeded in brutality and barley matched in ferocity by the Islamist. No doubt the warmist would stone to death unbelievers if allowed.

In science the sceptic is paramount in the advance of scientific truth and fact. That the warmist attack such is even a greater damnation of them as real science and more an indicator they are a dogmatic faith based cult than even their fraudulent work.

Notice how ‘A physicist’ (who is neither a physicist nor a scientist) uses fallacious arguments to ‘prove’ that his faith-based belief in AGW is valid.

He appeals to an irrelevant authority, in this latest case, the Vatican, which is not, to my latest awareness, a scientific institute nor does it provide any scientific data to support its opinions.

All of his other links have the same problems in argumentation; they are all either irrelevant to the topic, red herrings, evidentiary fallacies, reductionist..etc. He never examines his links for these fallacies, fails to see that his, for example, Einstein example of no need for consensus, invalidates his own reliance on consensus as evidence..and so on.

Then, after his template of fallacious links fails to impress us, he moves into his ‘folk-talk’ rhetoric (what is that supposed to be evidence of????) and smiley faces (what’s the argumentative point of that???).

He’s tiresome, he’s a bore, and, like all dogmatic cultists, his opinions are cocooned from real hard science and factual data. In addition, his arguments reject logic; he prefers the fallacious tactics; – ad verecundiam, reductionism, red herrings, false analogy, false cause…ad nauseum, ad numeram… that’s why I think his posts are of great use in classes on Critical Thinking.

Charlie (and others), the Pope ain’t himself a scientific source … he is instead wisely guided by them.

Just like nowadays (at last!) Japan’s recovery from the Fukushima disaster is being guided by sobering science-and-engineering realities … and no longer guided by TEPCO’s willfully ignorant, hopelessly incompetent, utterly corrupt corporate shills.

The poin is simple: if our American leaders foolishly trust Big Carbon … just as Japan’s leaders foolishly trusted TEPCO … then AGW will be the Fukushima disaster over again … but slower, far bigger, and disastrously worse.

The Pope is right that we should protect creation. But we do not protect creation if we throttle economic activity to chase something that is not actually there. There are two possible responses to the claimed phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming. You throttle economic growth so that we do not emit greenhouse gases sufficient to cause us trouble. This would take the literal invasion of India and the PRC because condemning 2 billion people to continued grinding poverty and shortened life expectancy is what that road really means and neither the government of China or India are going to sign on to that program. The second option is to go full steam ahead on economic growth and adapt to the changes.

The first requires a lot of excess dead people between now and 2100, the latter requires a lot of inventiveness and creativity. Guess which one all the AGW theorists sign on to? The first, right? You’d be wrong.

They don’t sign on to the second course either. Instead, they sign on to a neither fish nor fowl program of saying that they are going to cut emissions but then exempt the 21st centuries 2 largest projected emitters of greenhouse gases, India and the People’s Republic of China. This actual course, if it is maintained, will lead to the need for massive adaptation expenditures but done with an economic base that is much smaller. In other words, even if the AGW people are right, they are steering us to disaster.

For those, like A physicist, who believe AGW is so serious that the modern world must revert back to 19th century standards of living to save the planet, I can only suggest they read, “COOL IT,” by Bjorn Lomborg. Here’s a bit of the review of the book:

“Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming will further enhance Lomborg’s reputation for global analysis and thoughtful response. For anyone who wants an overview of the global warming debate from an objective source, this brief text is a perfect place to start. Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.

Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change–despite his critics, he’s no denier–but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that “we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal.”

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.”

The message is that we cannot manage the climate. Even if CO2 is the culprit, (which is still unproven) we cannot cut our CO2 emissions enough to make a difference without essentially destroying modern life as we know it. Some say that is what the Greens want. For more on that see:http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

Humans were here before the beginning of the last Ice Age. They adapted to the change. (Which must have been extremely difficult for them with their limited resources.) That is what we need to do now if necessary – adapt by using our technology and understanding of how best to do that.

I highly encourage anyone interested to get a copy of the Skeptical Environmentalist, a copy of the Scientific American article critiquing Skeptical Environmentalist, and a copy of Lomborg’s long response to the SA article. It’s absolutely clear that these folks are not interested in honest argumentation. The climate policy pushers have determined what the Truth is, and do not hesitate to misrepresent what those who disagree with them say. Even if you agree that warming is happening, and is in significant part caused by humans, yet disagree with their policy prescriptions for “fixing” the warming, they will still label you a “denier” or the absurd “denialist”. Those who label people like Lomborg or McIntyre “anti-science” fill me with an unspeakable rage.

Try again, buddy. If you would like to show me something where Lomborg actually argues for a carbon tax, go for it. Maybe Scientific American will hire you to write “rebuttals” to the evil “denialists”. Maybe you can replace John Holdren – I don’t know if you can do his job while wearing a bow tie, though.

It appears that Lomborg always supported AGW. http://www.lomborg.com/faq/ He just said AGW was less important than other considerations. If your science is as bad as your research here your day job is in jeopardy.

Actually the most important reason Galileo was hounded was that he was a complete tool. He was a brilliant man who was contemptuous of ‘lesser’ minds which was pretty much everybody else in his opinion. His contempt alienated his peers and supporters so that when he overreached and mocked the Church all his potential allies sat back and enjoyed his comeuppence.

A scientist can never “prove” anything because one can never know all the data and interrelationships. That is why scientific experiments always test against a “null” hypothesis. If one can reject a null hypothesis, then the alternate is accepted TENTATIVELY, pending further research.

I have not heard any pro-global warming scientists give an inkling that they are aware of this traditional philosophy of science.

Is this guy, “A Physicist” the guy that works in the Sports Medicine dept at the UofW? I mean, if I’m wrong, and he’s actually earned his chops on this subject, then I apologize. But if it is him, isn’t he pretty much just a glorified physical therapist?

Dude, if that is you, a better and more welcome (and appropriate) forum would be with Charles Johnson over at LittleGreenFootballs. ‘Cause you are practically, regarding this subject, soul mates. And since you are from the same coast, the commute for lunch in San Francisco might be a welcome activity for both of you.

Let’s pick someone who is perhaps the most distinguished of all Green scientists!

Someone who’s a *real* scientist … not a “political scientist” like Lomborg).

Conservatives will *really* like what this scientist has to say …! :) ;)

The Future of Life
by Edward Wilson
Chapter 7: The Solution

The truth is that everyone wants a productive economy and lots of well-paying jobs. People almost all agree that private property is a sacred right. On the other hand, everyone treasures a clean environment. Seventy percent of Americans agree that “Nature is God’s creation and humans should respect God’s work.”

Only when these two obvious and admirable goals, prosperity and saving the creation, are cast into opposition does the issue become confused. And when the apparent conflict is in addition reinforced by opposing political ideologies, as it often is, the problem becomes intractable.

The ethical solution is to diagnose and disconnect extraneous political ideology, then shed it in order to move toward the common ground where economic progress and conservation are treated as one and the same goal.

Weren’t we told two years ago that we absolutely had to begin reducing carbon emissions right then, or we were past the point of no return? Why are they warmers still whining? According to their scientists it’s already too late? unless, of course it was just a ploy to divert money to their coffers.

A physicist : Since you seem to be having fun here, let’s do some physics. Please explain, in layman’s terms, how the solar and CO2 forcing functions work in the alarmist AGW moldels and what the emperical support for their formulation is.

Further, explain in detail how, if the Earth is getting warmer due to AGW at such a rate that catastrophic consequenses will ensue, the oceans show no warming, but instead a slight cooling trend.

Failure to answer these questions in detail is proof positive that you are nothing more than a liar and a troll.

Edward Wilson is not a ‘distinguished scientist’ in climatology. He’s an advocate of sociobiology, a deterministic, mechanical and reductionist view of human beings, that rejects free will, chance and the reality of reason.

And the extract cherry-picked above, has zilch to do with AGW.

As usual, A physicist, who is neither a physicist nor a scientist, offers irrelevant quotations and references to support his opinions. Yet again, they provide no logical or empirical evidence to support AGW. And yet again, A physicist expects us to fall to our knees because so-and-so ..says..such and such. A genuine scientist, of course, would never offer up such irrelevancies nor ask for any such mindless agreement.

ETAB, the idiot git to which you refer is a troll, pure & simple. Responding to him is a waste of time because he a dogmatic bigot, or he’s just going for the most responses he can. Either way it’s guaranteed he’ll just keep spewing the same garbage.

I’ll start believing the AGW crowd is only about rationality and science (rather than power, politics and greed) when I stop seeing the term “denialist” used to describe anyone who so much as raises an eyebrow at the over-the-top rhetoric and scare tactics used in pushing political agendas tied to AGW (whether or not they could rationally have any discernible effect on global temperatures). The use of such a derogatory and judgmental term has the effect of quashing any debate, shutting out even those who are open to persuasion. No matter, truth will out. We can only hope that hubris and alarmism don’t cause too much irreversible damage.

LA, your post is uncommonly well-reasoned. I stand corrected, and will use the term “denialist” no more.

You and I can both admire the website SkepticalScience where a search for the term denialist returns:

Search Results: There are no arguments matching the search term ‘denialism’

That’s pretty wonderful, isn’t it LA?

To see the climate science community has already embraced your (admirably respectful and thoughtful) conservative values, by wholly dropping the terms “denialist” and “denialism”? Heck … the Vatican too never uses the term … and that’s why I reckon that I don’t need it either.

“LA, your post is uncommonly well-reasoned. I stand corrected, and will use the term “denialist” no more.”

The word “denialist” and its first version, “denier”, have been created to specifically to show parallels between people skeptical of AGW and Holocaust deniers. It is highly insulting, and people who coined the phrase and us, its targets, knew that. You expect us to believe that you never knew its intent? And that it took just few sentences from LA to convince you to stop using it? Really?

A physicist,
The cited article from CS Monitor states that we should, “Support population planning and sustainable development policies.”
You mean like this?
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
Read the whole thing:http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

You do realize that the best way to bring population growth under control is for nations to become wealthy? To become wealthy they must use energy, and the only energy that can make a difference at this stage of human development is derived from burning the EVIL fossil fuels. Oh, NO!
Whenever someone tries to convince me that we need more government, more central planning, and that humans are too stupid to live their lives without government central planning, I smell a marxist dressed up in green or, as James Delingpole says, “A watermelon.”

Lomborg is a political scientist but he is also a statistician, which equips him to examine environmentalist claims in an organized way. Much as Steve McIntyre has at Climate Audit. I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre has lead the statistical research in showing that the “Hockey Stick” is bogus. If not, read some of his work here:http://climateaudit.org/

I do not know why I bother…
The AGW alarmist web site, Skeptical Science, which has nothing to do with skepticism as it a supporter of consensus alarmist view, has pretty crummy search engine. Instead of searching for “denialism”, how about searching for “denier” or “denial”?

You will get a whole page of blogposts (not the comments, but actual blog posts).
AMong them such gems as “Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial” all the way to “Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change”, or “Haydn Washington talks Climate Change Denial on Steaming Toad” among many, many others.

Udar, it seems to me that SkepticalScience did pretty well to purge “denialist” completely, from *all* of their scientific explanations. As for the blogosphere, well … even PJM/Tatler does mighty poorly when it comes to politeness, eh?

As for leaders who are incapable of learning from harshly-presented facts …

The resulting albedo is shifted towards the dark to such a degree that it’s like tossing salt on icy roads.

The melting is entirely a soot effect.

—–

This folly was fulsomely displayed by 60 Minutes some years ago: they went to a melting glacier in Patagonia. It was melting like a wet witch.

The problem was that their own video displayed massive amounts of ash — dark ash — all over the melting glacier. It turns out that just to the West — in Chile — an extremely ashy volcano had been venting for the last few years — so much so that ‘vog’ hung over the landscape even as they filmed.

The scene looked like a bit from Lord of the Rings!

This is the level of idiocy spewed forth by the mentally strained media: complete tools.

——

We saw such decades ago with China Syndrome — the fiasco flick.

It it the public is shown a GE style boiling water reactor — like the ones in Japan — while the entire back drop is a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor — similar to the ones used by the US Navy — and dominant in France.

That is EXTREMELY slipshod craft work. How much effort can it take to gin up a cardboard display for a PWR?

Rational people with no political agenda for or against large government will tell you that neither the pro nor the con AGW belief systems are true for sure.

The bottom line is, we do not know beyond a reasonable scientific statistically verifiable doubt.

Where does that leave all you? Arguing a personal belief system….or arguing against spending all our wealth and destroying much of our national wealth just on the guess that AGW exists. Who would let his daughter marry a man with ideas like that?

Algore, I suppose. Not THERE is a scientific wizard for you!!!!!

I would waste my time contributing further to this and I WAS a tenured PhD academic ….. but NOT in AGW. But I was educated in what one might name “the scientific method.”

All of the algae to bio-diesel schemes use SUPER elevated CO2 concentrations.

Because air is everywhere — and almost everywhere the same — the boost to farm output due to higher levels of CO2 goes un-noticed, un-remarked. But it’s there.

NASA spent big bucks in the 60′s doping out just how the food cycle could be completed in space. It was quickly determined that it was ESSENTIAL to boost CO2 in the growth space so as to reduce the mass required.

The effect of lifting CO2 by 50% is an EXPONENTIAL one. That’s just how reaction kinetics works. Nothing ( usually ) is linear. Nature is exponential or logarithmic.

So much of the Green Revolution has nothing to do with gene manipulation — it’s due to air borne fertilizer — that is entirely taken for granted.

As for the capacity of nature to absorb CO2 — inspect the White Cliffs of Dover. The mass is astounding.

As for human impact — a SINGLE volcano can — and does — release as much CO2 as ALL of the First World.

Reefs and shell fish LOVE CO2. It’s a dire need for them — same as for plants. As partial pressures ( of CO2) rise — population growth grows exponentially. Such is the nature of life.

—-

As for truth in self-labeling: ‘A physicist’ caries every ‘tell’ that he is NOT a hard sciences guy.

I rather suspect that he’s posting from Starbucks HQ — right across the street from the University of Washington.

Actually, eh? “A physicist” is more likely from the solar-powered socialist hub of Ontario – downtown Toronto, where all the up-and-coming AGW revolutionaries are hunkering down in the U-of-T cafeteria as we speak. These clowns actually believe that Canada will grow and prosper with solar power. Seriously!

Let’s not forget that the US military’s recent ‘conversion’ has more to do with
mitigating the Logistical Millstone of fossil fuels than with even Civilian Command Authority (CIC) Fiat. The Navy went nuclear (for propulsion) decades ago FOR A REASON.

To attribute a preference by the Military for a cleaner, greener, lighter, more compact energy paradigm than fossil fuels as a response to or acknowledgement of AGW is a deliberate deception – also known as propaganda, and “Lying”.

A carbon tax will provide the seed funding for the technologies that will [solve global warming].

A carbon tax is only a small part of this [dealing with the reality of AGW]. It can raise the revenue for green R&D but the real issue is make sure we spend much, much more than what we’re spending today on green research and development.

It’s great that Bjørn Lomborg, and Pope Benedict, and Ed Wilson, and the Pentagon now are all getting onto pretty much the same page in accepting that AGW is real … and perhaps pretty soon American conservatism too will abandon ideology-first skepticism.

“Slice your average environment correspondentPJM/Tatler pundit through the middle and you’re going to find a leftright-leaning liberal arts graduate who is utterly out of his/her depth.”

`Cuz ain’t it the plain truth, that the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Defense Department’s Climate Change Task Force, the world’s shipping captains, and pretty much every North American conservationist group, and now Bjørn Lomborg himself …

“The Scott Polar group, which includes director Julian Dowdeswell, says the claim of a 15% loss in just 12 years is wrong.”

I know, I know, this is a religious thing with you, so you’ll mangle quotes, take quotes out of context, ignore black-and-white evidence, all to gain your own ends. It’s an old truism the devil can site scripture for his own purpose. But you see, in the end, all you do is make the world more and more skeptical of you.

Wait a sec. We’re not in the “Monthy Python’s Flying Circus” “Argument” skit, are we?

The “Lomborg changed his mind” meme is a complete misrepresentation. He believes that the Earth is warming, and that people have a lot to do with it, and we should do something about this – invest in R & D. Does he think the government should be significantly involved in this? NO. Can someone show me where in the past, he stated that global warming was not happening, or that people had nothing to do with it? He previously said there were more important problems than global warming that we should be spending our money on. Now he seems to have prioritized spending on global warming somewhat higher – that is the only difference. I repeat what I said above – get a copy of Skeptical Environmentalist, the Scientific American critique of it, and Lomborg’s response. People need to work this out for themselves, to see how these folks argue. It’s truly despicable.

You are obviously not reading the words that I am writing. You are not worth talking to. People who deny that there was nothing to the Phil Jones/CRU emails are either liars or fools – you have done this on a previous thread. Skeptical Environmentalist was written a long time ago – this is irrelevant to the point that I am making. I AGREE THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING, AND IS BEING DRIVEN IN NO SMALL PART BY CARBON DIOXIDE. Your misdirection is reprehensible. The issue here is with prominent members of the climate science community engaging in extremely dishonest argumentation, as perfectly evidenced by Dr. Bow Tie. I repeat: go look at this stuff yourself, folks. Here is Lomborg’s response to the SA critique: http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ScientificAmericanBjornLomborgAnswer.pdf If you want to know more about why the “OMG ALL TEH INVESIGATIONZ EXONERATED THEMZ LOL!?!?!” folks are liars, go to http://www.climateaudit.org. McIntyre is extremely thorough, just as Lomborg is – there isn’t any ridiculous political “ITZ ALL A HOAX” rhetoric. If you are content to read the vitriolic rhetoric of a James Delingpole, or the ill-considered words of Melanie Phillips, then don’t waste your time.

I suggest that YOU read the articles that you link to, also, since you can’t be bothered to read my comments.

“Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. “The point I’ve always been making is it’s not the end of the world,” he told the Guardian. “That’s why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well.”"

This is exactly what I said above – Lomborg has not significantly changed his position.

From National Review in 2008:

“LOMBORG: To some, a cap-and-trade system might sound like a neat approach where the market sorts everything out. But in fact, in some ways it is worse than a tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs are hidden and shifted around. For that reason, many politicians tend to like it. But that is dangerous.

It’s misleading not to recognize that the costs of cap-and-trade — financially and in terms of jobs, household consumption, and growth — will be significant. Some big businesses in privileged positions could make a fortune from exploiting this rather rigged market — but their gain is no reason to support the system.”

Lomborg has suggested some sort of modest carbon tax, used to fund R & D, might not be such a bad idea. His primary argument is that PRIVATE COMPANIES should invest in this R & D, because the government is bad at doing this sort of thing – see Solyndra. I have NEVER seen him argue anything about taxing carbon to make it cost what it “actually” costs, due to those ever-so-hard-to-quantify economic effects of a ton of CO2.

“It’s about dropping our fixation on solving climate change through cuts in carbon emissions and looking at more effective solutions, like increased research and development into low-carbon energy.”

“The argument between cap-and-trade and a carbon tax is effectively a fight about which cart we should put in front of the horse! We need to recognize that there is a massive technological challenge ahead of us. A high carbon tax or grandiose cap-and-trade scheme will only hurt growth if alternative technology is not ready, without making any real dent in global warming. Instead of constantly promising of emissions reductions, politicians need to work on the means to get there. That’s why we need to seriously invest in research and development.”

[Grist] There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

[Gore] I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

The father of American climate science was Professor Reid Bryson at University of Wisconsin. As an army air corps weather man during WWII, Captain Bryson correctly postulated the existence of the jet stream and briefed it to bomber crews before they took off for a raid on Japan. General Curtiss LeMay took issue until the returning crews reported a 168 mph tailwind.

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

In addition to the paralax problem, there was another problem with the heliocentric theory in Galileo’s time. The initial heliocentrism proponents erroneously assumed that earth and planetary orbits were perfect circles. Because of this, the theory had significant disagreements with observation. It was not until Kepler used Tycho Brahe’s observations to refine the Heliocentric model with elleptical orbits, that the disagreements with observations were finally resolved, and the theory generally accepted. Scientists at the time, and even many church officials, were not all ignorant anti science bigots, they were intelligent people raising legidimate questions.

There is a scientific concensus that some AGW is occuring, but that does not mean it is settled science yet. There are still some pretty knowledgable and high profile dissenters who still challenge AGW conclusions, and they are not all kooks or paid industry shills (for that matter the pro AGW side has its shills as well, from the companies that would benefit from cap and trade). It is even conceivable their chhallenges may turn out to overturn AGW. And there are plenty of unanswered questions, like exactly how much climate is affected by AGW, vs solar activity, and natural climate fluxuation. There are also problems with the lack of transparentcy of raw data, and the data processing methods, used by many of the climate science outfits, that interfere with replication of their work by independent outfits. There are also questions on whether some natural processes, like increased algae growth or cloud changes, may end up reducing AGW effects.

And even if the science on AGW is eventually completely settled, the science on what should be done about it, is even less settled, and may never be, since it leaves the realm of pure science, and enters the realm of economics and politics. It is entirely reasonable to not turn our economy over to worldwide socialist regulation based on science with this many unsettled questions.

Therefore, when the leftists accuse anybody who raises questions about AGW of being anti science, it is in fact they themselves who do not actually understand science. Scientific questions are not settled by majority vote. They are settled when the evidence and facts become so clear that nobody with any knowledge of relevent scientific discliplines bother to challenge it anymore. This eventually occured on the question of whether smoking caused cancer (which was unsettled for at least a decade), and someday it may occur on AGW as well. But the left’s intolerance, suppression of legidimate dissent, and exagerated public statements that turn out to be false, only delay the day when the science actually can be settled. Science can sometimes work very slowly, and prudent politics waits for it to do its work.

Larsen, it seems (to me) that the real lamers are the folks who are saying:

“Let’s level *another* pristine American mountaintop, and let’s borrow *another* billion dollars from China, and let’s send all those American dollars overseas, to Russian oligarchs and Muslim monarchies.”

Has the scientific method changed within the past few years. For some time bedrock has been reproducibility by other scientists, with even different aims in the studies. What reproducibility can be achieved on KNOWN to be data tainted for reasons that can only be guessed at, e.g. from CRU East Anglia and IPPC of the UN?

Science is a “discipline” for gaining of knowledge. Education in general is also, isn’t it, a “discipline” for gaining knowledge?

There is ample evidence within this past half century that some scientists and educators prefer membership in an exclusive club of “elites” to the disciplines of their professions. Influence via pet media organs and shills persons who appear to influence managers and controllers of their lives. The managers to provide funds/grants for pursuit of their aims, increasingly civic and financial power.

So scientists and educators have chosen adherence to the social club rather than integrity to the discipline to which they pledged themselves. As politicians do on “principle”? inherently within this past century when money really does make the world go round.

So we find an increasing bastardisation of both the disciplines in the hands of professional scientists and educators. Taking as model the professional politician, known to be entirely self serving and loosely if at all faithful to personal or public oaths This then is the result of the vaunted education of the benighted masses by the “elite”.

The ever-lengthening list of climate change “believers” includes The World Organization of the Scout Movement.

The encompasses all branches of World Scouting, that is … except the American branch.

Which for reasons known only to itself, Scouts of America utterly dissociates conservation practices from climate change … the former it advocates, yet on the latter it maintains a complete (and unexplained) silence.

Hmmmmm … is American Scouting controlled by ideology-first AGW skeptics? Should it be?

Now *that* is a good question to ask Mr. Perry, who is a high-profile advocate of scouting.

(2) It is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly CO2.
OK, let’s say it is. But it is also caused by other factors obviously – otherwise we’d still live in an ice age, or a primordial soup…

(3) To work, markets must reflect the real costs of carbon burning.
“To work” – that’s just your opinion. Markets work even when they don’t work, if you know what I mean. And who gets to decide the ‘real’ cost anyway? And the real cost to whom, exactly? In the long run we’re all dead.

(4) This requires emissions trading (that is, carbon credits).
No it doesn’t. But go ahead and start your own market, let me know how it works out.

(5) Invest the revenues in green technologies that create green jobs.
Smart money tries to invest in smart things. The taxes, ahem, revenues you refer to would be spent politically, no? Pretty sure that’s the rub. And then there’s luck. You can’t predict any of these effects. Unknown unknowns or something like that…

Besides all this, has someone identified the average temperature and/or humidity of the earth that we should be aiming for when we turn down the thermostat? I like 72 degrees!

(2) It is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly CO2.
OK, let’s say it is. But it is also caused by other factors obviously – otherwise we’d still live in an ice age, or a primordial soup…

(3) To work, markets must reflect the real costs of carbon burning.
“To work” – that’s just your opinion. Markets work even when they don’t work, if you know what I mean. And who gets to decide the ‘real’ cost anyway? And the real cost to whom, exactly? In the long run we’re all dead.

(4) This requires emissions trading (that is, carbon credits).
No it doesn’t. But go ahead and start your own market, let me know how it works out.

(5) Invest the revenues in green technologies that create green jobs.
Smart money tries to invest in smart things. The taxes, ahem, revenues you refer to would be spent politically, no? Pretty sure that’s the rub. And then there’s luck. You can’t predict any of these effects. Unknown unknowns or something like that…

Besides all this, has someone identified the average temperature and/or humidity of the earth that we should be aiming for when we turn down the thermostat? I like 72 degrees!

… then ain’t “skeptical conservatism” just another name for the worst kind of liberalism?

That is, ain’t “skeptical conservatism” just another name for “moral relativism and willful ignorance, sold-out to special interests, that harms America’s security, prosperity, and the health of our children”?

Folks, the main point here is that the MSM is out in force to discredit Governor Perry with every lie of which they can conceive. As the election draws closer the lies will expand and become even more revolting.

But, in fact, the truth about Oscumbag is even worse than the lies about Gov. Perry.

We’re a bunch of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your website offered us with useful info to work on. You’ve performed a formidable activity and our entire community might be thankful to you.